lion, the Netherlands will do an act which will be viewed with the liveliest satisfaction by the United States, and, I may be permitted to add, one worthy the traditions of this ancient and renowned state, and will set an example well worthy the respect and consideration of other nations.

"The undersigned, &c., &c.

"Baron VAN ZUYLEN, &c., &c."

On the 9th instant I had an interview with Baron Van Zuylen, again urging him in the most earnest manner to issue such instructions to the Dutch authorities in the West Indies as would peremptorily exclude from their ports every species of craft set afloat by the secessionists.

Baron Van Zuylen appears, and I have no doubt is, very desirous to do all he possibly can, under what he deems the requirements of public law, to carry out the wishes of the United States in this matter. He does not consider that his government has recognized belligerent rights, and desires not to be pressed on that point. I told him we had no desire to press him to do anything, except to issue such instructions to his colonial governors as will effectually exclude the piratical vessels of the secessionists from making use of the Dutch ports.

He asked then if we would consent to have our own ships-of-war excluded. I told him if that was necessary to relieve him from a dilemma, I did not know how far such an act might be tolerated for the sake of an advantage which we could procure in no other way. We might not find fault, if thereby we found our interests advanced. But, of course, I could not undertake to commit my government on the point. I remarked that exclusion would not operate to our disadvantage, inasmuch as we had command of the sea, while it would be fatal to the plunderers, as they had no retreat at home. He intimated that his government contemplated making the proposition to the United States. He also remarked that the course of our own government threw impediments in their way; for while we regarded the secessionists as rebels, we did not seem to treat them as such when taken prisoners, not even their privateers. I concluded the interview by renewedly urging every consideration I could adduce to induce him to issue the desired orders, and to lose no time in doing it.

He will soon make a written communication on the whole subject, which I will forward at the earliest moment after receiving it.

After my interview, I addressed Baron Van Zuylen the following note:

"UNITED STATES LEGATION, "The Hague, September 9, 1861.

"SIR: Referring to our conversation of to-day, I beg to suggest that what appears to you a practical difficulty may, it seems to me, be properly overcome by your government issuing orders to its colonial authorities to regard all armed vessels bearing the so-called confederate flag as privateers. They are so in fact, and they should not be allowed to shield themselves under any other pretext. Unless a vessel claiming to be a ship-of-war exhibit some prima facie evidence of being such, in her size, and in her other external symbols and aspects, which these piratical craft do not, the proper authorities may well claim the right to decline all investigation of the case, and assume her unlawful character.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

*

JAMES S. PIKE.

Mr. Pike to Mr. Seward.

[Extract.]

No. 17.]

UNITED STATES LEGATION, The Hague, September 18, 1861.

SIR: The minister of foreign affairs has not yet furnished me with the promised communication on the Sumter case.

On the 12th instant I addressed him the following note:

"SIR: Referring to my recent communications to you on the case of the Sumter, I beg to say, in order to avoid all possibility of cavil or misapprehension, that, in speaking of or alluding to the marauding vessels of the persons in rebellion against the United States government as 'privateers,' I refer to them as such only in the sense of their own pretensions; the United States government, as you are well aware, regarding them solely as piratical craft, and the persons engaged thereon as pirates.

"I have the honor to be, &c., &c.

"Baron VAN ZUYLEN, &c., &c."

I have the honor to be, with great respect, your most obedient servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington.

JAMES S. PIKE.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Pike.

No. 22.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 23, 1861.

SIR: Your despatch of August 28, No. 14, has been received. We await with some interest the explanations of the government of the Netherlands concerning the affair at Curaçoa, but at the same time with very great confidence that it will be conformable to the good and friendly relations existing between the two countries.

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,

JAMES S. PIKE, Esq., &c., &c., &c..

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. Pike to Mr. Seward.

[Extracts.]

No. 18.]

UNITED STATES LEGATION,
The Hague, September 25, 1861.

Though dated the 17th, it did not

SIR: I have the honor to enclose the communication from the Dutch government in reference to the Sumter case. make its appearance to me till the 20th.

You will perceive that the ground taken in regard to the harboring of the Sumter in the port of Curaçoa is, that it was the case of a vessel in distress. This paper, however, goes beyond the case in hand, and argues the claim of the seceding States to be considered belligerents, and their rights as such, besides going over the whole ground of the rights of neutrals.

Baron Van Zuylen makes out to his own satisfaction that the secessionists hold that position, and that this carries with it the right of hospitality, in neutral ports, to their ships-of-war.

To my suggestion in my note of the 9th, that the Sumter was in no just sense a ship-of-war, but a privateer, or, as our government claims, a pirate, and that the want of the ordinary characteristics of a ship-of-war, besides the fact that she bore a strange flag of no recognized nationality, entitled us to ask of Holland, as a friendly nation, to assume her unlawful character. Mr. Van Zuylen opposes an argument to show that the Sumter was really a ship-of-war of the Confederate States, and that an impartial neutrality demanded that she be so treated. He finds his support of his position that this was the Sumter's real character in the declarations of her captain and in the allegation of Harpers' Weekly.

The minister of foreign affairs seems to admit the force of the argument I had previously urged, that it was inconsistent with all ideas of a just neutrality that these marauding vessels of the secessionists could be allowed to make free use of the neighboring ports of a power holding friendly relations with the United States, for hostile purposes, and this, too, while deprived of all shelter or resource at home. And, in reply to my earnest request that he would cause to be issued to the Dutch colonial authorities in the West Indies orders against such use of their ports, Baron Nan Zuylen de Nijevelt declares, under cover of his general principles, that orders shall be issued in the sense of forbidding the use of the Dutch ports as the base of operations against United States commerce, or, as he phrases it, by either of the belligerents.

In regard to this part of Mr. Van Zuylen's communication, I will here observe that much will depend upon the character of these instructions, and not less upon the spirit in which they are executed. It is in the power of the Dutch government, and of its colonial authorities, to so act, upon the basis of the rule laid down on this head, as to avoid further cause of complaint on the part of the United States, and to effectually prevent these sea robbers from making use of the Dutch ports as a means of pursuing their ravages; and I have so expressed myself to Baron Van Zuylen in the note of which I have the honor to annex a copy. I will add that I have confidence that such orders will be given.

The following is a copy of my note to Mr. Van Zuylen:

"UNITED STATES LEGATION,

The Hague, September 23, 1861.

I

"SIR: I have had the honor to receive your communication of the 17th instant, which will, in due time, receive that attention its importance merits. "Meantime I desire to observe that, as must have been obvious to you, have hitherto contented myself with advancing general considerations appealing to the friendly dispositions of Holland, rather than in invoking the application of the strict rules of public law to the case under review.

"The Dutch government exercises its undoubted right in overlooking such considerations, and in assuming the championship of a so-called neutrality, which insists upon treating a domestic disturbance as a war between equals. "For those who so desire, as I am sure Holland does not, it is easy to be persuaded of an incipient nationality in an insurrection, and to see a ship-ofwar in every pirate that insults mankind with her depredations or shocks it with her crimes.

I have great satisfaction in learning from his communication that Baron Van Zuylen recognizes the force of the considerations I have had the honor

to present to him touching the evident violation of a just neutrality which is involved in the free use of the ports of the Netherlands by the cruisers of persons engaged in piratical depredations upon the commerce and shipping of the United States, and also in learning that the government of his Majesty has determined that it will not permit its ports to be made the base of operations against that commerce, and that instructions in this sense will be addressed to the governors of the Netherlands colonial possessions.

"It is in the power of the Dutch government, acting upon the rule it has thus laid down, to issue such instructions to its colonial authorities as shall prevent further cause of complaint on the part of the United States, if those instructions shall be executed in good faith.

"The United States government will rely upon the action of Holland in this respect, and will still confidently look for such a course on the part of the Dutch government as will aid it in driving the instigators of rebellion and plunderers of property upon the high seas from the haunts they infest, and in bringing them to condign punishment.

"I have the honor, &c., &c.

"Baron VAN ZUYLEN, &c., &c."

"JAMES S. PIKE.

To-day I have addressed Baron Van Zuylen the following note:

"UNITED STATES LEGATION,

"The Hague, September 25, 1861.

"SIR: I shall to-day forward your communication of the 17th instant to my government. I do it with reluctance, since its basis is found, as I have already remarked to you, in the assumption of the government of the Netherlands that the domestic disturbance in the United States is a war between equals.

"It cannot be supposed that the United States will consent to debate the question of an abridgment of their sovereignty with Holland or any other nation.

"The United States are one whole undivided nation, especially so far as foreign nations are concerned, and Holland is, by the law of nations and by treaties, not a neutral power between two imaginary parties there, but a friend of the United States. There is in the United States, as there has always been since the establishment of the government, one political power, namely, the United States of America, competent to make war and peace, and conduct alliances and commerce with foreign nations. There is none other, either in fact, or recognized by foreign nations. There is, indeed, an armed sedition seeking to overthrow the government, and the government is employing military and naval force to suppress it. But these facts do not constitute a war presenting two belligerent powers, and modifying the national character, rights, and responsibilities, or the character, rights, and responsibilities of foreign nations.

"That Holland should take a different view of the case will, I am sure, be a subject of very deep regret to the United States. "The undersigned, &c., &c.

"JAMES S. PIKE.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, your most obedient servant, JAMES S. PIKE.

Hon. WM. H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

Baron Van Zuylen to Mr. Pike.

[Translation.]

THE HAGUE, September 17, 1861. SIR: The department of the colonies has just communicated to me the information, transmitted by the governor of Curaçoa, concerning the affair of the ship "Sumter," and I hasten to bring to your notice the following observations, by way of sequence to the preliminary reply which I had the honor to address to you on the 2d of this month. According to the principles of the law of nations, all nations without exception may admit vessels of war belonging to a belligerent State to their ports, and accord to them all the favors which constitute an asylum. Conditions are imposed on said vessels during their stay in the port or roadstead. For example, they must keep perfect peace with all vessels that may be there; they may not augment. their crews, nor the number of their guns, nor be on the lookout in the ports or roadsteads for the purpose of watching after hostile vessels arriv ing or departing, &c. Besides, every state has the right to interdict foreign vessels of war from entrance to ports which are purely military. Thus it was that Sweden and Denmark, in 1854, at the time of the Crimean war, reserved the right to exclude vessels of war from such or such ports of their dominions.

The neutral power has also the right to act like France, who, by her declaration of neutrality in the war between the United States and the Confederate States, under date of 9th June last, (Moniteur of 11th June,) does not permit any vessel of war, or privateer, of one or the other of the belligerents, to enter and remain with their prizes in French ports longer than twenty-four hours, unless in case of refuge under stress.

In the proclamation of the month of June last, which was communicated to you with my despatch of the 13th, the government of the Netherlands has not excluded vessels of war from her ports.

As to privateers, the greatest number of the maritime nations allows them the privilege of asylum upon the same conditions nearly as to vessels of war:

According to a highly-esteemed author on the law of nations, (Hautefeuille, Droits et Devoirs des Nations Neutres, I, p. 139,) privateers may claim entrance into the ports of nations which have consented to accord asylum to them, not only in cases of pressing dangers, but even in cases in which they may deem it advantageous, or even only agreeable, and for obtaining rest or articles of secondary necessity, such as the refreshments they may have need of.

The terms of the proclamation of the Netherlands government, which admits privateers into Netherlands ports only in cases of distress, harmonize with this doctrine.

Moreover, according to the information received from the governor of Curaçoa, the "Sumter" was actually in distress, and that functionary could not, therefore, refuse to allow the said vessel to enter the port.

Strong in its amicable intentions, the King's government does not believe itself bound to confine itself to the defence of the conduct of one of its agents in the particular case under discussion. It is not ignorant that it can or may hereafter be a contested question in such cases as to the reality of the distress in which such vessel or other would be, and that thus the subject of the admission generally of the Confederate States vessels would rest untouched. I, therefore, sir, think it opportune to look into the ques